Is Stepehn Schloesser Generally Accepted As One Who Accurately Portray

[cooterhein]

What's in the title and description is actually most of what I know about his credentials to this point. I looked for public bio info that might indicate whether or not his teaching of Catholicism is generally accepted as orthodox; I didn't find any.

The only other things I know to this point are as follows: He submitted a lengthy and informative letter to a Massachusetts senator on the topic of marriage throughout the history of Catholicism. In particular, he addressed the idea that marriage has been a certain unchanging way for 3,000 years. He says it has been anything but static and he goes through quite a bit of material on his way to that conclusion. This is the link. [url="http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2004/imp-141.htm"]http://www.yawningbr...004/imp-141.htm[/url]

It was a lot of material, but I really enjoyed going through it. From what he writes, it seems like he's a really good prof. I've availed myself of most of my opportunities to have really good history teachers/profs, and his material seems to be engaging. To me, at least.

But that's not necessarily a good sign. He doesn't read like an average Catholic apologist. He reads like a really good historian, but when I think about the different Catholic apologists that I've read, it doesn't have that kind of feel to it at all. So I'm wondering if this guy is highly regarded among such apologists.

He wrote something else about Vatican II, and this appears to be 39 pages in length. I read most of the first page, but then I decided to see what other Catholics think of this Catholic before going through all of that.

I hope that someone is somewhat familiar with him from prior experience. I didn't include the link because I expect you to read the whole thing; I did so because I made reference to it and I happen to have the source on hand. I can give you a summary of it if that's necessary. The thesis states that marriage is always in the process of being changed, and it has not been static for the past 3,000 years. He moves from laws of the Roman empire pertaining to women as property, talks about puissance paternelle, and outlines how the CC initially regarded the child-bearing purpose of marriage as the purpose with primacy, while its remedy for concupiscence was secondary. (This language was used as late as the Code of Canon Law in 1917). But now we can also look at what Paul XII said about the "unitive purpose" of marriage; this is also expressed in Humanae Vitae and Guadium et Spes para. 50. He also points out that when various "ends" of marriage are listed, child-bearing no longer enjoys explicit primacy and nothing else is listed as secondary.

A great deal more is talked about; that only scratches the surface. There's quite a bit about divorce and annulments throughout the history of Catholicism (he argues that this has not been static), he covers concepts of personhood pertaining to women throughout history and how that related/relates with what it means to be a wife or husband, and he does quite a bit with homosexuality as well.

The main thing that helped me know "this isn't a Catholic apologist" was the way he used the word "innovation." Especially in the way that he used it when referring to what various popes have said, done, or written. "Shocking" and "surprising" innovations were even talked about- and yet he didn't seem to treat these innovations as if they were a bad thing. The entire letter to the Senator appears to be devoted to the idea that Catholic popes, bishops, and so forth are constantly making these innovations, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's what they do, and that's how it works.

Despite this, his familiarity with history is quite good and he, at least, seems to think he can speak as a learned historian on the history of Catholicism as one who is familiar with it specifically because he loves it and is a part of it. He does read a lot differently from an apologist, though, and this could be for one of two reasons: Perhaps apologists and historians have different habits due to the differences in what they do. Or perhaps he isn't the "right kind of Catholic." Perhaps, as good a teacher as he might be, he's not a good source for a truly Catholic perspective on history that will meet the approval of most Catholics throughout the world.

Well, perhaps "most Catholics" isn't the right group to go after. I suppose I'm really asking if you think Stephen Schloesser's material would meet the approval of a tiny minority of Catholics- those being the bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc. I'm pretty sure no pope ever did anything that he would call an innovation (correct me if I'm wrong here), but vocabulary and verbage aside, does Dr. Schloesser tend to be accurate with the historical storyline that he lays out?

Again, I'm hoping that someone is reasonably familiar with this person. Or maybe you already know some things about the letter he wrote. I just discovered it recently, but that's just me. I do tend to be out of the loop on some things. After all, I just discovered the existence of this forum, and some people seem to have been here for years. So please, I'm not asking anyone to go do a bunch of research for me. But if you recognize the name, or if you already have a good degree of familiarity with some of the things he's written, could you please give me a passing summary of the information that you already have? I have 39 pages of information in front of me concerning Vatican II and I'm not entirely sure if my reaction to it will be remotely similar to that of Catholics on this or any other forum. That's the main reason why this information is useful to me.

[Socrates]

No I (thank God!) have not had prior experience from this Fr. Schloesser, but I read the linked letter, and the answer to the question of whether he is orthodox is an absolute and resounding "NO!"

In fact he is completely and entirely full of poo, and that's putting it charitably.

What he says in that letter is directly contrary to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church's unchanging teachings on marriage and sexual morality.

It appears in that letter, he is lobbying for state recognition of homosexual marriage, a position directly opposite to what the Church teaches. For a detailed explanation of the Church's position and reasoning on that topic, I suggest you read the CDF document, [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url], written by our current Holy Father.

In fact, the Church has always regarded homosexual acts (the sin of sodomy) as gravely sinful and disordered, and can never approve of them, much less see them as equivalent to marriage.
Fr. Schloesser may claim that Church opposition to homosexuality is some historically recent thing, but that is a bald-faced lie.
The fact that homosexuality is morally wrong has been stated by the Church from the beginning, found in the letters of St. Paul the Apostle, and this is confirmed by the writings of the early Fathers of the Church.
See quotes from the early Fathers regarding homosexuality here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp"]Early Teachings on Homosexuality[/url]
Good article on the Church's position on homosexuality here: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp"]Homosexuality[/url]

Likewise, the Church has always taught that contraception is gravely sinful.
Here's some more examples from the Early Fathers: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601frs.asp"]Contraception[/url]

Fr. Schloesser sites some individual dissenters to try to prove his lie that the Church's teachings on these issues have changed, but the truth is that the Church's magisterial teaching, as taught by the Pope and the bishops in union with him, and found in the Catechisms, have never changed, and remain constant.

Unfortunately, a lot of the Jesuit order has gone to pot (though there still are a few good Jesuits) and preach in open rebellion to what is taught by the Church.

That guy is a liar and deceiver, plain and simple.

If you want to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, read it here:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM"]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url]

[Lil Red]

good response, soc

[Vincent Vega]

Anytime you see this: ", S.J.", take it with a grain of salt.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305068665' post='2239841']
Long and good answer
[/quote]


THIS

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1305071033' post='2239858']
Anytime you see this: ", S.J.", take it with a grain of salt.
[/quote]

and THIS

Edited May 10, 2011 by Amppax

[cooterhein]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1305071033' post='2239858']
Anytime you see this: ", S.J.", take it with a grain of salt.
[/quote]Society of Jesus, right?

Thanks very much for responding; kind of a follow-up question about Jesuits....I've noticed that a lot of what you see in the Online Catholic Encyclopedia is written by Jesuits. It's especially noticeable in articles that have to do with Banez, Molina, election, grace, predestination, etc.

There's one article in particular- the one entitled "Predestination." It gets into the controversies within Catholicism, goes into something called "The theory of predestination ante prævisa merita" and "The theory of predestination post prævisa merita." It's not written from a neutral point of view at all, and this becomes especially clear at the end: "To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion."

Each of these teachings is within the bounds of Catholicism, but the "theory here presented" is the one generally supported by Jesuits. And while it doesn't find support from (for example) Augustine, the authors of the article seem to think it enjoys something like support from people like Prosper and Fulgentius (Augustine's pupils) and, they would argue, the greater part of Tradition as a whole.

Would you accuse them of boldness in this situation? I don't think I see an "S.J." anywhere, but they couldn't state their position any more clearly in this particular article.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

[Vincent Vega]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is orthodox, and indeed, the Jesuits used to be a solid group (Ss. Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Aloysius Gonzaga, et al.) and, indeed, there are still some orthodox Jesuits. Unfortunately, those seem to be in the minority nowadays, though.

Edited May 11, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS